krouth

cruelnv

If anyone else looked at the the shirt referenced earlier, I now know what the book was that I couldn't identify; Twilight. I have to say, I'm kind of glad I couldn't tell...

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other user(s). Please keep in mind that these are only opinions and should not be inherently considered as factual statements. Thank you.

samuelrsheridan

drinkingthesea wrote:Shakespeare wrote plays, not books. They are not the same thing. The script of a play is just the blueprint for the performance. It is not intended to be read like a book. This shirt, IMO, is off-topic.

I normally think posts that start with "Well I'm so educated I disagree with you" sound pretentious and Jatravartid. But as a playwright, with a MFA in playwrighting... you're wrong. You're overly generalizing, and you're being diminutive about a form of literature because it also functions in a performance art role?! That's just ridiculous.

Josephus

ccazabon wrote:Point being, this still is NOT copyright violation. Not even close.

consider this: woot included the "no star wars" rule, which would be redundant if "no copyright" was the same as no parody, which it's not. If they didn't want parody, they would either say "no parody" or "no pop culture references" which they've done before.

To try to say this design falls under the copyright rule alone, is just ignorance or stupidity.

Actually, I don't really give a flying warp about whether there's a copyright violation (guess I never should have mentioned copyright in my response). All I was trying to do was help with the misunderstanding about 'celebrity likeness'. Copyright law, anyway, is so extensively litigated and complex, that I doubt that anyone who misunderstands some arcane portion of it is either ignorant or Jatravartid. To make such an ad hominem comment is just rude and trollish.

mjc613

ccazabon

Josephus wrote:Actually, I don't really give a flying warp about whether there's a copyright violation (guess I never should have mentioned copyright in my response). All I was trying to do was help with the misunderstanding about 'celebrity likeness'. Copyright law, anyway, is so extensively litigated and complex, that I doubt that anyone who misunderstands some arcane portion of it is either ignorant or Jatravartid. To make such an ad hominem comment is just rude and trollish.

True, you didn't say this design was, I was mostly directing my argument against adder who insists that it is definitely against the rules. Yes copyright can be very complex, which on my part I poorly implied when saying that someone stating that this definitely violates it is ignorant to the fact that parody is allowed, even if the process for determining if it is goes into the "grey area"

ccazabon

I guess I would also appear to fall into the same category of simply saying that it's definitely not a violation on my original comment, so I'd rather correct that to say its not a definite copyright violation, or (in my opinion, based on what I know) even close.

maryccollins18

Must... Have... Precious shirt... We wants it. We needs it!!! In my opinion the battle between the books: HP would win. In my opinion!!! I love LOTR too, just HP more. The battle between these wizards: Gandalf would destroy. The real battle would be between Gandalf and Dumbledore... Yea!

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.